Colin McKenzie wrote:

Should anyone wish, despite this, to cycle, it is made clear to them
that they are being suicidally reckless and are unlikely to survive
long

Some cyclists are, without doubt, reckless, and are a danger not only to
themselves but to others. When I were a lad, such people were the
exception. Perhaps they still are, but it seems to be less of an
exception than it was.

Over the past year, I can recall one situation I observed where I felt
that a motorist had potentially caused danger to a cyclist. It would be
four or five where the cause of the danger was the cyclist.

.... and that's before we get on to the question of whether cyclists have
lights and visible reflectors when they go out at night...
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p14486561.html
(43 008 at Crewe, 28 Apr 2001)

On Fri, 09 May 2008 10:16:00 GMT someone who may be Chris Tolley
wrote this:-

Some cyclists are, without doubt, reckless, and are a danger not only to
themselves but to others.

That is true of most groups of people.

When I were a lad, such people were the
exception. Perhaps they still are, but it seems to be less of an
exception than it was.

Another possibility is that your perception of danger has changed as
you got older.

Over the past year, I can recall one situation I observed where I felt
that a motorist had potentially caused danger to a cyclist. It would be
four or five where the cause of the danger was the cyclist.

How does a cyclist cause danger to a motorist? While most things are
possible it is not easy. Motorists are inside a box, so even of the
cyclist crashes into them at high speed they are likely to walk away
with no injuries. It is not the same the other way round.

Note that some motorists have claimed not to have noticed that they
were killing a cyclist or pedestrian, that is how isolated some are
from the world outside their little box.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Fri, 09 May 2008 10:16:00 +0000, Chris Tolley wrote:

snip
Over the past year, I can recall one situation I observed where I felt
that a motorist had potentially caused danger to a cyclist. It would be
four or five where the cause of the danger was the cyclist.

... and that's before we get on to the question of whether cyclists have
lights and visible reflectors when they go out at night...

As a pedestrian, I feel threatened by both bad drivers and bad cyclists -
and I certainly accept that there are bad pedestrians as well. However,
in general driving offences in towns (where I am most likely to be
walking) are illegal parking and speeding. What they don't do is to drive
at night with no lights, to drive the wrong way up one-way streets, or to
to crash red traffic lights. I see this behaviour from cyclists just
about every day, and I am not exaggerating.


--
Bewdley, Worcs. ~90m asl.

"Chris Tolley" wrote in message
...
Colin McKenzie wrote:

Should anyone wish, despite this, to cycle, it is made clear to
them
that they are being suicidally reckless and are unlikely to
survive
long

Some cyclists are, without doubt, reckless, and are a danger not
only to
themselves but to others. When I were a lad, such people were the
exception. Perhaps they still are, but it seems to be less of an
exception than it was.

If cycling has recently doubled, as it has, then half the cyclists on
the road are novices.

If they have only recently taken cycling up, they must be idiots, for
not having done so earlier.

Jeremy Parker

On Fri, 9 May 2008 00:15:21 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

[content snipped]

Would you shorten your sig please! It's very interesting but also
irritating having to scroll through 11 superfluous lines of text every
time you post.

tom

--
For the first few years I ate lunch with he mathematicians. I soon found
that they were more interested in fun and games than in serious work,
so I shifted to eating with the physics table. There I stayed for a
number of years until the Nobel Prize, promotions, and offers from
other companies, removed most of the interesting people. So I shifted
to the corresponding chemistry table where I had a friend. At first I
asked what were the important problems in chemistry, then what important
problems they were working on, or problems that might lead to important
results. One day I asked, "if what they were working on was not important,
and was not likely to lead to important things, they why were they working
on them?" After that I had to eat with the engineers! -- R. W. Hamming

On Sat, 10 May 2008, G wrote:

On Fri, 9 May 2008 00:15:21 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

[content snipped]

Would you shorten your sig please! It's very interesting but also
irritating having to scroll through 11 superfluous lines of text every
time you post.

It would be if you had to. My sig changes frequently, so you don't.

Also, why do you have to scroll through it? It's at the bottom, and i
don't top-post!

tom

--
For the first few years I ate lunch with he mathematicians. I soon found
that they were more interested in fun and games than in serious work,
so I shifted to eating with the physics table. There I stayed for a
number of years until the Nobel Prize, promotions, and offers from
other companies, removed most of the interesting people. So I shifted
to the corresponding chemistry table where I had a friend. At first I
asked what were the important problems in chemistry, then what important
problems they were working on, or problems that might lead to important
results. One day I asked, "if what they were working on was not important,
and was not likely to lead to important things, they why were they working
on them?" After that I had to eat with the engineers! -- R. W. Hamming



--
For one thing at least is almost certain about the future, namely,
that very much of it will be such as we should call incredible. --
Olaf Stapledon

On Sat, 10 May 2008 19:32:26 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

On Sat, 10 May 2008, G wrote:

On Fri, 9 May 2008 00:15:21 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

[content snipped]

Would you shorten your sig please! It's very interesting but also
irritating having to scroll through 11 superfluous lines of text every
time you post.

It would be if you had to. My sig changes frequently, so you don't.

Also, why do you have to scroll through it? It's at the bottom, and i
don't top-post!

The accepted usenet convention is that a sig. should not exceed four
lines.

Some people get upset if they are exceeded.
--
Regards

Mike

mikedotroebuckatgmxdotnet

In article , Ian Jelf
writes
Surprised at being asked, I was staggered when they said that their
grounds for suspicion was that I was carrying.......an umbrella!

With hindsight, I suppose it did look a bit odd in yesterday's lovely
sunny weather

Some years ago I was at a technical conference in London. The conference
itself was at Lancaster Gate but the evening social was at Tower Bridge
(on the gantries). One of the (sponsored) free gifts was an umbrella.

So one July, on a scorching hot day, you got to see 500 geeks carrying
umbrellas as they rode the Underground from Lancaster Gate to Tower
Bridge.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

On Thu, 8 May 2008 23:03:58 +0100, "Clive D. W. Feather"
wrote:

In article , Ian Jelf
writes
Surprised at being asked, I was staggered when they said that their
grounds for suspicion was that I was carrying.......an umbrella!

With hindsight, I suppose it did look a bit odd in yesterday's lovely
sunny weather

Some years ago I was at a technical conference in London. The conference
itself was at Lancaster Gate but the evening social was at Tower Bridge
(on the gantries). One of the (sponsored) free gifts was an umbrella.

So one July, on a scorching hot day, you got to see 500 geeks carrying
umbrellas as they rode the Underground from Lancaster Gate to Tower
Bridge.

If it is summer they are called parasols.
(until it rains...)

On Thu, 8 May 2008 23:03:58 +0100, "Clive D. W. Feather"
wrote:

In article , Ian Jelf
writes
Surprised at being asked, I was staggered when they said that their
grounds for suspicion was that I was carrying.......an umbrella!

With hindsight, I suppose it did look a bit odd in yesterday's lovely
sunny weather

Some years ago I was at a technical conference in London. The conference
itself was at Lancaster Gate but the evening social was at Tower Bridge
(on the gantries). One of the (sponsored) free gifts was an umbrella.

So one July, on a scorching hot day, you got to see 500 geeks carrying
umbrellas as they rode the Underground from Lancaster Gate to Tower
Bridge.

Wouldn't a true geek walk to Marble Arch and take the no. 15?
--
Ken